Re: [RDA-L] Qualifying access points

2013-11-06 Thread Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Mac said: If the place is part of the corporate body name, obviously a geographical qualifier is not needed for the name used as an entry. If removing that geographic name for a cross reference, should it not then be a qualifier at the end of the shorter form of the name? Exactly. And

Re: [RDA-L] Qualifying access points

2013-11-05 Thread James Weinheimer
On 04/11/2013 22.49, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote: snip If catalogs can't take people to authority records (and some can), Wikipedia doesn't seem to mind. It's just a question of programmers matching the data to the users. Here are some examples of what's possible when one sees the forest of

Re: [RDA-L] Qualifying access points

2013-11-05 Thread Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Following this lively discussion, I find it harder and harder to make up my own mind... With persons, I believe that (as I've said before) using dates as a means of distinction doesn't really help a lot. And as long as the data from the authority record is easily accessible (which it is in

Re: [RDA-L] Qualifying access points

2013-11-05 Thread J. McRee Elrod
Heidrun said: The thing which triggered of my initial question were references from shorter forms of the name. If the place is part of the corporate body name, obviously a geographical qualifier is not needed for the name used as an entry. If removing that geographic name for a cross

Re: [RDA-L] Qualifying access points

2013-11-04 Thread Brenndorfer, Thomas
-Original Message- From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca] Sent: November-04-13 3:50 PM To: Brenndorfer, Thomas Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Qualifying access points Thomas said: I already make extensive use of that data in the new RDA-based MARC